Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL

[Anthony DeRobertis <asd@suespammers.org>]

On May 10, 2004, at 16:58, Raul Miller wrote:
> If so, what makes you think that chapters of a BSD manual which
> incorporates a chapter from a GFDL book must all be licensed under
> the GFDL?

That doesn't sound like it'd qualify for GFDL 7. Sounds like you'd be 
using Section 5.

> > > And, as I said in the message you were responding to, while the GFDL
> > > approach is unwieldy, it's less so than a "patches only" license 
> > > could
> > > be.
> >
> > Huh? A free patches-only license allows the results of compiling
> > patched source code to be distributed.
>
> And how does this help when what you want to distribute from that 
> program
> isn't a binary?

If there is no "build time" then the first sentence of DFSG does not 
apply and that is not a free license. (BTW: DFSG 4 does not use the 
term 'binary'; I assume this is what you mean).